Limits on campaign spending OK'd by split Supreme Court

Published 5:30 am, Tuesday, June 26, 2001

WASHINGTON -- A split Supreme Court on Monday upheld Congress' right to restrict some spending on political campaigns, in a ruling that experts said could affect the debate on campaign finance reform.

In a 5-4 decision, the high court upheld the principle that a cap on spending by political parties on particular candidates did not violate the Constitution's First Amendment free-speech protections.

With four justices vigorously dissenting, the Supreme Court said post-Watergate laws aimed at curtailing political corruption by limiting some forms of campaign spending could continue.

Latest News Video

But opinion was divided on whether the high court's decision cleared the way for Congress to pass controls on so-called "soft money" later this year.

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., the principal architect of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill under debate in Congress, expressed his satisfaction with the decision and said, "I am extremely pleased the Supreme Court has upheld limits on money that parties can give to specific candidates.

"I trust this ruling ... increases the likelihood that meaningful reform will finally be passed and signed into law this year."

The FEC and Democrats specifically challenged a $15,000 radio ad used by the GOP in that campaign, which was eventually won by the Democrat.

Under a 1974 law designed to limit corruption after Watergate, the FEC limits the amount national parties can spend to help elect House and Senate candidates.

The lawsuit said Republicans in the 1986 campaign violated those limits, while the Colorado Republican Party said the restrictions were unconstitutional.

Justice David Souter, writing for the majority, said there was no evidence that the restrictions had damaged the political parties' ability to function. At the same time, they did provide a check to political corruption, he said.

But Justice Clarence Thomas, one of four dissenters, said the law "sweeps too broadly, interferes with the party-candidate relationship and has not been proved necessary to combat corruption."

Monday's ruling concerned direct contributions to candidates and did not address so-called soft money. But it did examine the issue of restricting political spending and will be studied closely by members of Congress preparing to vote on a soft-money ban, experts said.

Soft-money contributions go to parties, not candidates, and are supposed to be used for party-building rather than to elect a specific person. Direct contributions -- hard-money donations -- are limited to $2,000 per candidate for each election cycle.

Experts on campaign finance law were as split as politicians on the impact that Monday's decision could have on campaign finance proposals aimed at limiting soft-money spending.

Larry Noble, a former general counsel at the FEC, said the decision was an important one at a critical time in the campaign finance debate.

"What both sides of the debate should take away from today's decision is that when properly crafted, laws aimed at limiting the corrupting impact that large contributions have on the political process ... will be upheld," Noble said.

But James Bopp Jr., general counsel for the James Madison Center for Free Speech, said the ruling did not address the key issue of whether restricting soft money was an imposition on constitutional free-speech protections.

"While today's opinion maintains the status quo regarding limits on contributions to candidates, it provides no support for McCain-Feingold's ban of party soft money," he said.

The Senate earlier this year passed the McCain-Feingold campaign finance bill, which would eliminate unlimited soft-money donations by unions, corporations and individuals to political parties.

The House is expected to vote on a similar measure next month. President Bush has signaled that he is unlikely to veto a campaign finance reform bill, making the House vote the critical battleground for the measure.